Structure and associations of science vocabulary, general academic vocabulary, and science knowledge

Abstract

AbstractWe examined the structure of domain-specific academic science vocabulary, general academic vocabulary, and conceptual science knowledge and their impact on each other across two measurement points in a sample of 388 German third graders. Results show that the three constructs can be empirically differentiated. The high latent correlation between science vocabulary and general academic vocabulary suggests that science vocabulary is a language-related rather than a knowledge-related construct. Furthermore, science knowledge and science vocabulary predicted each other. By contrast, general academic vocabulary was only associated with science vocabulary but not with science knowledge acquisition. Neither science knowledge nor science vocabulary predicted general academic vocabulary at the end of the school year, suggesting it might be less sensitive to regular instruction.Keywords: Academic languageelementary schoolscience competencevocabulary Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Ethics approvalAll procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. In line with the German regulations for conducting empirical studies in schools, our study was evaluated and approved by the ministries of education of the two participating federal states. This procedure covered scrutiny of all materials used in the study, such as cover letters to schools, teachers, students, and parents (including information on the voluntary nature of participation etc.), survey materials (questionnaires, tests, items, etc.), and procedures (e.g., for data protection and anonymization). Approval was provided by the Commission for Data Protection and Information Freedom of Berlin (Reg.-Nr. 40/2016) and Hesse (GWU-Nr. 578).Data availability statementData used in the present study are available from the Research Data Center of the Institute for Educational Quality Improvement (IQB) under the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.5159/IQB_ProSach_v1Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through Grant 01JI1602A, awarded to IQB at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany and through Grant 01JI1602B awarded to Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. The authors assume full responsibility for the content of the present publication.This work was funded by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Type Gapped Sentence (Topic Floating and Sinking)